Talk:Mascarene parrot

Orphaned references in Mascarene Parrot
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mascarene Parrot's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lost Land": From Small Mauritian flying fox:  From Réunion Pink Pigeon:  From Mascarene Grey Parakeet:  From Réunion Ibis:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Double image issue
Hi,, in regard to the double image under description where you left a note, I considered the various options when I did it, and here are my thoughts. 1: the adjacent text talks specifically about Martinet's plate currently placed on the left (this was originally the only image there), so I thought it should be "first", and therefore left where it is now, facing towards the text. 2: The second image is also by Martinet, but isn't actually discussed in the source, but I put it there because it is still relevant to the point about different Martinet plates using different colours, but if I find a different version of the first plate with different colours (which would therefore also face left), I would use that instead. 3: I think it isn't so straightforward which is the "correct" way to make the subjects of the images face in a case like this where they face different ways. I'd argue that the current configuration, where the gallery is right aligned, and the left bird faces the text, but the other one away, is just as valid as one where the left bird faces away, but the right bird faces the text. In either case, one bird faces the text, but in the current version, at least the one closest to the text is the one facing it, (which I think would be closer to "correct"). But in the end, I think it is very subjective in cases like this, and I doubt those who wrote the MOS ever had it in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, not a concern ... I could see it was complicated ... thanks for the response anyway. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)